The Economic Journal: 125th Anniversary Issue Free On-line

125thAnniversary Issue

The Economic Journal, one of the grand old journals of economics, is celebrating its 125th anniversary. The Royal Economic Society (40% of its membership is in the UK, the rest around the world) is collaborating with the publisher, John Wiley & Sons, to make the March 2015 birthday issue freely available online. The theme of the issue is that current top economists look back on classic papers published in the EJ, and offer reflections and analysis. Here are the titles of the papers in bold, with the reference to the classic EJ paper under discussion and weblinks underneath. For those who recognize the original papers and the current authors, no further recommendation is necessary.

_____________

“Economic Journal 125th Anniversary Special Issue” (pages 203–208)
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(176K)
____________

“Unveiling the Ethics behind Inequality Measurement: Dalton’s Contribution to Economics,” by Anthony B. Atkinson and Andrea Brandolini

Dalton, H. (1920). ‘The measurement of the inequality of incomes’, Economic Journal, vol. 30(119), pp. 348–61.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(1559K)
_____________

“In Praise of Frank Ramsey’s Contribution to the Theory of Taxation,” Joseph E. Stiglitz

Ramsey, F.P. (1927). ‘A contribution to the theory of taxation’, Economic Journal, vol. 37(145), pp. 47–61.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(1307K)
_____________________

“Frank Ramsey’s A Mathematical Theory of Saving,” by Orazio P. Attanasio

Ramsey, F.P. (1928). ‘A mathematical theory of saving’, Economic Journal, vol. 38(152), pp. 543–59.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(123K)
_________________

“Keynesian Controversies on Wages,” by John Pencavel

Dunlop, J.T. (1938). ‘The movement of real and money wage rates’, Economic Journal, vol. 48(191), pp. 413–34.

Keynes, J.M. (1939). ‘Relative movements of real wages and output’, Economic Journal, vol. 49(193), pp. 34–51.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(4493K)
____________

“Harrod 1939,” by Lawrence E. Blume and Thomas J. Sargent

Harrod, R.F. (1939). ‘An essay in dynamic theory’, Economic Journal, vol. 49(193), pp. 14–33.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(2258K)
____________

“Introduction to The Distribution of Earnings and of Individual Output, by A.D. Roy,” by James J. Heckman and Michael Sattinger

Roy, A.D (1950). ‘The distribution of earnings and of individual output’, Economic Journal, vol. 60(239), pp. 489–505.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(1871K)
___________

“Introduction to A Theory of the Allocation of Time by Gary Becker,” by James J. Heckman

Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(117K)
__________

“Gary Becker’s A Theory of the Allocation of Time,” Pierre-André Chiappori and Arthur Lewbel

Becker, G.S. (1965). ‘A theory of the allocation of time’, Economic Journal, vol. 75(299), pp. 493–517.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(3912K)
_________

“Localised and Biased Technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz’s New View, Induced Innovations, and Directed Technological Change,” by Daron Acemoglu

Atkinson, A.B. and Stiglitz, J.E. (1969). ‘A new view of technological change’, Economic Journal, vol. 79(315), pp. 573–8.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(835K)
_________

“Taxation and Saving – A Retrospective,” Alan J. Auerbach

Atkinson, A.B. and Sandmo, A. (1980). ‘Welfare implications of the taxation of savings’, Economic Journal, vol. 90(359), pp. 529–49.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(2217K)
__________

“Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives,” by Han Bleichrodt and Peter P. Wakker

Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1982). ‘Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty’, Economic Journal, vol. 92(368), pp. 805–24.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(2731K)
__________________

“Knowledge Spillovers, Innovation and Growth,” by Philippe Aghion and Xavier Jaravel

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1989). ‘Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D’, Economic Journal, vol. 99(397), pp. 569–96.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(3460K)
__________________

“Endogenous Growth, Convexity of Damage and Climate Risk: How Nordhaus’ Framework Supports Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions,” Simon Dietz and Nicholas Stern

Nordhaus, W.D. (1991). ‘To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouse effect’, Economic Journal, vol. 101(407), pp. 920–37.
Abstract
Full Article (HTML)
Enhanced Article (HTML)
PDF(2454K)

Karl Marx Was Right

By Chris Hedges

    A bust of Karl Marx. (gravitat-OFF / CC BY 2.0)

On Saturday at the Left Forum in New York City, Chris Hedges joined professorsRichard Wolff and Gail Dines to discuss why Karl Marx is essential at a time when global capitalism is collapsing. These are the remarks Hedges made to open the discussion.

Karl Marx exposed the peculiar dynamics of capitalism, or what he called “the bourgeois mode of production.” He foresaw that capitalism had built within it the seeds of its own destruction. He knew that reigning ideologies—think neoliberalism—were created to serve the interests of the elites and in particular the economic elites, since “the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production” and “the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships … the relationships which make one class the ruling one.” He saw that there would come a day when capitalism would exhaust its potential and collapse. He did not know when that day would come. Marx, as Meghnad Desai wrote, was “an astronomer of history, not an astrologer.” Marx was keenly aware of capitalism’s ability to innovate and adapt. But he also knew that capitalist expansion was not eternally sustainable. And as we witness the denouement of capitalism and the disintegration of globalism, Karl Marx is vindicated as capitalism’s most prescient and important critic.

In a preface to “The Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” Marx wrote:

No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.

Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since looking at the matter more closely, we always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist, or are at least in the process of formation.

Socialism, in other words, would not be possible until capitalism had exhausted its potential for further development. That the end is coming is hard now to dispute, although one would be foolish to predict when. We are called to study Marx to be ready.

The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It would, as it has, increasingly relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap pools of laborers. Industries would mechanize their workplaces. This would trigger an economic assault on not only the working class but the middle class—the bulwark of a capitalist system—that would be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt as incomes declined or remained stagnant. Politics would in the late stages of capitalism become subordinate to economics, leading to political parties hollowed out of any real political content and abjectly subservient to the dictates and money of global capitalism.

But as Marx warned, there is a limit to an economy built on scaffolding of debt expansion. There comes a moment, Marx knew, when there would be no new markets available and no new pools of people who could take on more debt. This is what happened with the subprime mortgage crisis. Once the banks cannot conjure up new subprime borrowers, the scheme falls apart and the system crashes.

Capitalist oligarchs, meanwhile, hoard huge sums of wealth—$18 trillion stashed in overseas tax havens—exacted as tribute from those they dominate, indebt and impoverish. Capitalism would, in the end, Marx said, turn on the so-called free market, along with the values and traditions it claims to defend. It would in its final stages pillage the systems and structures that made capitalism possible. It would resort, as it caused widespread suffering, to harsher forms of repression. It would attempt in a frantic last stand to maintain its profits by looting and pillaging state institutions, contradicting its stated nature.

Marx warned that in the later stages of capitalism huge corporations would exercise a monopoly on global markets. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe,” he wrote. “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” These corporations, whether in the banking sector, the agricultural and food industries, the arms industries or the communications industries, would use their power, usually by seizing the mechanisms of state, to prevent anyone from challenging their monopoly. They would fix prices to maximize profit. They would, as they [have been doing], push through trade deals such as the TPP and CAFTA to further weaken the nation-state’s ability to impede exploitation by imposing environmental regulations or monitoring working conditions. And in the end these corporate monopolies would obliterate free market competition.

A May 22 editorial in The New York Times gives us a window into what Marx said would characterize the late stages of capitalism:

As of this week, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland are felons, having pleaded guilty on Wednesday to criminal charges of conspiring to rig the value of the world’s currencies. According to the Justice Department, the lengthy and lucrative conspiracy enabled the banks to pad their profits without regard to fairness, the law or the public good.

The Times goes on:

The banks will pay fines totaling about $9 billion, assessed by the Justice Department as well as state, federal and foreign regulators. That seems like a sweet deal for a scam that lasted for at least five years, from the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2013, during which the banks’ revenue from foreign exchange was some $85 billion.

The final stages of what we call capitalism, as Marx grasped, is not capitalism at all. Corporations gobble down government expenditures, in essence taxpayer money, like pigs at a trough. The arms industry with its official $612 billion defense authorization bill—which ignores numerous other military expenditures tucked away in other budgets, raising our real expenditure on national security expenses to over $1 trillion a year—has gotten the government this year to commit to spending $348 billion over the next decade to modernize our nuclear weapons and build 12 new Ohio-class nuclear submarines, estimated at $8 billion each. Exactly how these two massive arms programs are supposed to address what we are told is the greatest threat of our time—the war on terror—is a mystery. After all, as far as I know, ISIS does not own a rowboat. We spend some $100 billion a year on intelligence—read surveillance—and 70 percent of that money goes to private contractors such as Booz Allen Hamilton, [which] gets 99 percent of its revenues from the U.S. government. And on top of this we are the largest exporters of arms in the world.

The fossil fuel industry swallows up $5.3 trillion a year worldwide in hidden costs to keep burning fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This money, the IMF noted, is in addition to the $492 billion in direct subsidies offered by governments around the world through write-offs and write-downs and land-use loopholes. In a sane world these subsidies would be invested to free us from the deadly effects of carbon emissions caused by fossil fuels, but we do not live in a sane world.

Bloomberg News in the 2013 article “Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?” reported that economists had determined that government subsidies lower the big banks’ borrowing costs by about 0.8 percent.

“Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets,” the report said, “it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year.”

“The top five banks—JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.—account,” the report went on, “for $64 billion of the total subsidy, an amount roughly equal to their typical annual profits. In other words, the banks occupying the commanding heights of the U.S. financial industry—with almost $9 trillion in assets, more than half the size of the U.S. economy—would just about break even in the absence of corporate welfare. In large part, the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders.”

Government expenditure accounts for 41 percent of GDP. Corporate capitalists intend to seize this money, hence the privatization of whole parts of the military, the push to privatize Social Security, the contracting of corporations to collect 70 percent of intelligence for our 16 intelligence agencies, as well as the privatization of prisons, schools and our disastrous for-profit health care service. None of these seizures of basic services make them more efficient or reduce costs. That is not the point. It is about feeding off the carcass of the state. And it ensures the disintegration of the structures that sustain capitalism itself. All this Marx got.

Marx illuminated these contradictions within capitalism. He understood that the idea of capitalism—free trade, free markets, individualism, innovation, self-development—works only in the utopian mind of a true believer such as Alan Greenspan, never in reality. The hoarding of wealth by a tiny capitalist elite, Marx foresaw, along with the exploitation of the workers, meant that the masses could no longer buy the products that propelled capitalism forward. Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite—the world’s richest 1 percent will own more than half of the world’s wealth by next year.

The assault on the working class has been going on now for several decades. Salaries have remained stagnant or declined since the 1970s. Manufacturing has been shipped overseas, where workers in countries such as China or Bangladesh are paid as little as 22 cents an hour. The working poor, forced to compete with the labor of those who are little better than serfs in the global marketplace, proliferate across the American landscape, struggling to live at a subsistence level. Industries such as construction, which once provided well-paying unionized jobs, are the domain of nonunionized, often undocumented workers. Corporations import foreign engineers and software specialists that do professional work at one-third of the normal salary on H-1B, L-1 and other work visas. All these workers are bereft of the rights of citizens.

The capitalists respond to the collapse of their domestic economies, which they engineered, by becoming global loan sharks and speculators. They lend money at exorbitant interest rates to the working class and the poor, even if they know the money could never be repaid, and then sell these bundled debts, credit default swaps, bonds and stocks to pension funds, cities, investment firms and institutions. This late form of capitalism is built on what Marx called “fictitious capital.” And it leads, as Marx knew, to the vaporization of money.

Once subprime borrowers began to default, as these big banks and investment firms knew was inevitable, the global crash of 2008 took place. The government bailed out the banks, largely by printing money, but left the poor and the working class—not to mention students recently out of college—with crippling personal debt. Austerity became policy. The victims of financial fraud would be made to pay for that fraud. And what saved us from a full-blown depression was, in a tactic Marx would have found ironic, massive state intervention in the economy, including the nationalization of huge corporations such as AIG and General Motors.

What we saw in 2008 was the enactment of a welfare state for the rich, a kind of state socialism for the financial elites that Marx predicted. But with this comes an increased and volatile cycle of boom and bust, bringing the system closer to disintegration and collapse. We have undergone two major stock market crashes and the implosion of real estate prices in just the first decade of the 21st century.

The corporations that own the media have worked overtime to sell to a bewildered public the fiction that we are enjoying a recovery. Employment figures, through a variety of gimmicks, including erasing those who are unemployed for over a year from unemployment rolls, are a lie, as is nearly every other financial indicator pumped out for public consumption. We live, rather, in the twilight stages of global capitalism, which may be surprisingly more resilient than we expect, but which is ultimately terminal. Marx knew that once the market mechanism became the sole determining factor for the fate of the nation-state, as well as the natural world, both would be demolished. No one knows when this will happen. But that it will happen, perhaps within our lifetime, seems certain.

“The old is dying, the new struggles to be born, and in the interregnum there are many morbid symptoms,” Antonio Gramsci wrote.

What comes next is up to us.

More Top Heavy, More Republican: The 1% of the 1% Over Time

2015 0601ls

By Russ Choma, OpenSecrets | Report

One lesson of the 2014 election cycle was that more money came from fewer people.

And a look at the political One Percent of the One Percent of Americans — the top 31,000 or so donors, roughly equal to one percent of one percent of the U.S. population — over the last three elections bears that out: The money coming from this select demographic is increasing and it is leaning more conservative. What’s more, even within the top .01 percent, the donors at the very peak are contributing more and more of the money.

The Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation teamed up to take a detailed look at the topmost tier of donors of disclosed political contributions at the federal level.

This report is a joint project of the Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation.

Even among the top .01 percent, there is a perceptible trend toward the biggest donors shouldering more and more of the cost.

In 2010, it took at least $8,200 in donations reported to the Federal Election Commission to land in this exalted club. In 2014, the entry fee was $8,810 — an increase smaller than the rate of inflation, meaning that it was easier to get into the top .01 percent in 2014. Similarly, the median donation from this group in 2010 was $13,500, while in 2014 it was up to $14,850 – not a dramatic hike. Yet the top .01 percent gave $447 million more in 2014.

As it turns out, the most generous donors among the top 32,000 or so who make up the .01 percent gave more in 2014 than in 2010. The median donation for the top third of this group — roughly 10,400 donors each cycle — in 2014 was $37,600, up $5,100 from the same group in 2010. In 2010, that group of top 10,400 or so donors gave $488.4 million, or about 56 percent of the total donated by the .01 percent. By 2014, the top 10,400 donors gave nearly twice as much — $911.1 million, or roughly 86.5 percent of the donations from the larger group.

Even within the top .01 percent, there is apparently an elite set of donors pulling away from the pack.

2015 0601ls1

Partisan skewing

The .01 percent includes wealthy individuals from both ends of the political spectrum, but there are relatively few in between and the numbers at the extremes are growing. And more money is coming from the right.

The vast majority of donors in this demographic gave overwhelmingly, if not entirely, to one side or the other.

In 2010, there were 12,178 donors in the .01 percent who gave no money to Democratic or liberal recipients at the federal level, and a similar 12,782 who gave no money to Republican or conservative causes. In 2012, a presidential year, there were suddenly 14,672 donors who gave to no Democratic or liberal recipients, and only 10,672 who gave to no Republican or conservative ones.

By 2014, the trend toward greater partisanship had solidified, though the conservatives dominated — a full 15,147 (or almost half of the .01 percent) gave no money to Democrats or liberals, while 13,333 gave nothing to any Republicans or conservatives. There were just 174 donors among the 32,000 in 2014 who gave equally to both sides — one less than in 2010. And the biggest donor who gave to both sides in 2014 was only the 980th largest donor overall. The big money clearly lands on the extremes of the spectrum.

Overall, donations from the top donors numbering .01 percent of the population have moved from favoring Democrats and liberals to favoring Republicans and conservatives.

In 2010, 45.1 percent of donations from this set went to Democratic or liberal recipients, more than the 42.7 percent that went to Republican or conservative recipients. In 2012, the equation changed dramatically, with just 36.5 percent of the group’s money going to the left and 59.7 percent going to the right. By 2014, the .01 percent were slightly more interested in liberal recipients than they’d been in the presidential cycle, but not much — 42.7 percent of donations from these elite donors went to liberals while 46.8 percent went to conservatives, almost exactly flipped from the picture in 2010.

2015 0601ls3

Germany’s dominance is ending

oktoberfest germans ja!Michael Dalder/ReutersPeople in traditional Bavarian clothes take part in the Oktoberfest parade in Munich September 21, 2014.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD, THE TELEGRAPH

Germany’s birth rate has collapsed to the lowest level in the world and its workforce will start plunging at a faster rate than Japan’s by the early 2020s, seriously threatening the long-term viability of Europe’s leading economy.

A study by the World Economy Institute in Hamburg (HWWI) found that the average number of births per 1,000 population dropped to 8.2 over the five years from 2008 to 2013, further compounding a demographic crisis already in the pipeline. Even Japan did slightly better at 8.4.

“No other industrial country is deteriorating at this speed despite the strong influx of young migrant workers. Germany cannot continue to be a dynamic business hub in the long-run without a strong jobs market,” warned the institute.

The crunch is aggravated by the double effect of a powerful post-war baby boom followed by a countervailing baby bust – the so-called “Pillenknick”. The picture in Portugal (nine) and Italy (9.2) is almost as bad.

The German government expects the population to shrink from 81m to 67m by 2060 as depressed pockets of the former East Germany go into “decline spirals” where shops, doctors’ practices, and public transport start to shut down, causing yet more people to leave in a vicious circle.

germany_pop_ratios_3325897a.PNGvia The Telegraph

A number of small towns in Saxony, Brandenburg and Pomerania have begun to contemplate plans for gradual “run-off” and ultimate closure, a once unthinkable prospect.

Chancellor Angela Merkel warned in a speech in Davos earlier this year that Germany will lose a net 6m workers over the next 15 years, shrinking gradually over the rest of this decade before going into free-fall.

The International Monetary Fund expects the decline in the 2020s to be more concentrated – and harder to handle – than the gentler paces of decline seen in Japan so far.

Britain and France are in far better shape, with an average of 12.5 births per 1,000 in from 2008-2013. The IMF expects both countries to overtake Germany in total GDP by the middle of century and possibly even by 2040, implying a radical shift in the European balance of power.

germany_death_v_bi_3325915bvia The Telegraph

Germany’s leaders are themselves acutely conscious that their current hegemonic position in Europe is largely a mirage, certain to fade as more powerful historical currents come to the fore.

The HWWI said the numbers in the crucial 20-65 age group will drop from 61pc to 54pc by 2030, pushing the dependency ratio towards 1:1 and calling into question the solvency of the public pension system. Life expectancy for women is expected to continue rising to 88 and for men to 84 by the middle of the century, creating a massive social burden.

“We want people to face up to the enormity of the problem,” said Dr Andres Wolf, one of the authors of the report.

“It is a fiscal danger and it is a long-term danger to the ability of German companies to innovate and develop new products,” he added.

While ageing societies can enjoy a rise in per capita income for a while, they tend to do so by living off past creativity and intellectual capital. This reserve is exhausted over time. It becomes progressively harder for older countries to remain at the technology frontier.

germany_gdp_per_ca_3325899bvia The Telegraph

The HWWI said Germany must open it doors to further immigration of trained workers but fears that it will be a hard sell to voters in the current stormy atmosphere.

The anti-euro Alternative fur Deutschland party (AFD) has broken into several regional parliaments with a hard-line stance against immigrants. There are already almost 10m foreign-born nationals in the country – 12pc of the total – with a further 400,000 migrants are expected this year.

Germany cannot easily turn around the demographic tanker. Academic studies show that fertility rates tend to be structural – caused by deeply-rooted cultural patterns and social systems – and change very slowly in peacetime.

The demographic crisis explains why Germany is so determined to run a budget surplus and drive down its public debt ratios, hoping to avoid a Japanese-style debt-trap before it is too late.

germany_net_public_3325907a.PNGvia The Telegraph

Whether this is best achieved by austerity is a contentious issue. Budget cuts have led to a negative rate of public investment over the past decade, even though parts of the German canal system, railways and national infrastructure are slowly falling apart.

The IMF says Germany would do itself and the rest of the eurozone a favour by spending more to prepare for its old age, not less.

These Black Men Were Asked To Respond To The Word ‘Privilege’. Their Responses Revealed So Much.

These Black Men Were Asked To Respond To The Word 'Privilege'. Their Responses Revealed So Much.

What privilege really means.

Black men from five years of age to 50 were asked to respond to one word: privilege.

A video produced by Cut Video, shows the different emotions and thoughts the word “privilege” evokes from different men at different ages.

A young mind’s perspective.

At the start of the video, the younger pa

At the start of the video, the younger participants appear to associate “privilege” with either a rhyming word or a very personal, perhaps literal experience, like having an allowance or playing a game.

The teenage years.

As the participant group reached adolesce

As the participant group reached adolescent years, the word “privilege” began to hold more weight. Words like “respect,” “rights” and “civil rights” came to mind.

The first participant to use the word “White” was the 18-year-old, who explained, “I think of White privilege because it’s kind of an underlying thing in our society.”

This was not the last time the word “White” was used throughout the segment. In light of recent tragedies like the death of Black Baltimore resident Freddie Gray, racial tensions in the U.S have caused many to evaluate the disadvantages Black people still face — and the privilege that others less affected have.

A lingering distrust for our system is shown through the more complex responses by some of the men, starting at teenage years to adulthood. The responses show that privilege now has historic context and still holds ties to being “White.”

An adult perspective.

"White privilege, white supremacy," one 4

“White privilege, white supremacy,” one 48-year-old participant went as far as to say. “White privilege is an invisible steroid that you don’t even know you’re getting. When I get stopped and frisked, you don’t know that you didn’t get stopped and frisked.”

Not every participant felt this way.

Some men saw themselves as privileged in

Some men saw themselves as privileged in their own way. Some perceived privilege as being American, having wealth or something that needs to be earned.

The participants in this video show both similarities and diversities in the way Black men conceptualize social ideas.

There’s no one formula of thinking that works for all, but their responses can lead to an interesting conversation of how history and life experiences shape our perspectives.

These Photographs Are Breathtaking. Here’s What The World Looks Like.

These Photographs Are Breathtaking. Here's What The World Looks Like.

Anyone around the world can enter.

For the 27th year, National Geographic is hosting the “National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest,” inviting photographers around the world to submit photos, capturing their travel journeys.

The photographer-contestants behind these breathtaking shots have the opportunity to win prizes, including the grand prize — an eight day “National Geographic Photo Expedition: Costa Rica and the Panama Canal with airfare for two.”

Anyone can enter an unlimited number of photographs ($15 per submission), but entries must fall within specific categories: travel portraits, outdoors scenes, sense of place and spontaneous moments. No matter the category, all will give viewers insight into the photographer’s experience, and perspective of different parts of the world.

Every week, photo editors will feature their favorite entries on the contest website, and viewers can share and download wallpapers of the entries.

The competition is currently open and will end June 30 at 12 p.m. EDT, so hurry up and submit! In the meantime, check out these photos from the 2015 National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest.

Cover photo courtesy of: Photo and caption by Neeve Terman / National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest A view of Lion’s Head from Kloof’s Corner in Cape Town, South Africa

Although global growth has recovered, it’s still sluggish relative to the pre-financial crisis trend.

“Forecasters are only now beginning to feel less optimistic about 2015 growth prospects — with the exception of the eurozone, where data has been surprisingly on the upside,” according to HSBC’s James Pomeroy.

Europe’s been doing well thanks in part to exports and domestic consumption.

And, athough China’s slowed down, it’s still “well above” G7 growth rates. Along with India, it’s been the main driving force behind Asia’s GDP growth rates.

On the flip side, Latin America “struggles to keep pace.” Brazil pulled LatAm down even further, as the country didn’t grow at all in 2014.

As for the US, GDP growth turned negative in Q1, but annual consumption growth is “robust, around 3%,” residential investment as bounced back, and the “drag from government spending has receded.”

Check out each country’s GDP growth year-over-year below.

gdp map hsbcHSBC

Here Is What The National Economy Would Look Like In A $15-An-Hour World

2428701_ME_0519_minimum-wage-vote_GEM

The Sobering Truth About The Hourly Wage You Need To To Afford A 2-Bedroom Apartment Around The U.S.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition released its annual housing report “Out of Reach” earlier this month. Using the minimum wage rates from every state, the organization calculated the hourly wages residents need to make each hour in order to afford a moderate, two-bedroom apartment — and the outlook is grim.

Out of Reach found that the average hourly wage needed to rent a $1,006 two-bedroom unit in the United States is $19.35 — or $40,240 per year. That’s more than two and a half times the federal minimum wage, the report noted, and $4 over the estimated average wage of $15.16 that renters earn nationwide.

The data in Out of Reach is sobering,” wrote Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D) in the introduction to the report. “There simply isn’t enough reasonably priced, decently maintained housing to meet the demand, and rapidly rising rents outpace wages. As a result, one out of four households spends more than half their income on housing costs.”

To see how your state compares to the rest of the country, read the rest of the report at NLIHC.org or scroll through the graphs below. Keep in mind, the charts below show how much hourly employees would have to make in order to avoid spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent, a historically recommended ratio that’s increasingly hard to maintain in today’s housing market. It also assumes that an employee is being paid for 40 hours per week every week of the year, when many hourly employees are not paid for sick leave, national holidays, or vacation time.

national
Curtesy of the National Low Income Housing Coalition

States with the most largest inequality gap between housing income and renter wage for a 2-BR house are shown below:

national
Curtesy of the National Low Income Housing Coalition

H/T CityLab